memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Your user page
I strongly believe that what has become of some user subpages in the last months is way outside the scope of MA. Sure, it's your user page, but that doesn't mean you have to make half a blog out of it. Some of the content could simply be moved to the relevant articles (why write for your user page if you could write for the encyclopedia?) and the bigger part of the rest simply has no place on MA. Of course, what triggered this is the recent creation of a second user account complete with a huge user page because the user likes his red name so much. No offense, T smitts, but isn't this just a little too much? On a related note, I also don't like what is happening on the talk pages lately. To quote Memory Alpha:Most common Memory Alpha faux pas: :''Treating talk pages like a chat room. The talk pages are intended to be used exclusively for the discussion of issues related to the writing of Memory Alpha articles. If you're interested in general discussion about Star Trek, we recommend that you check out the Subspace Comms Network.'' -- Cid Highwind 16:17, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) :I agree on both accounts. --Alan del Beccio 17:07, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Agreed, I especially dislike the idea of people proliferating puppet accounts. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:45, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I agree on the chat room talk pages. I don't believe there is any "chatting" on my talk page. When it comes to User subpages, I have to disagree. First of all, most of the content on Shran's and T smitts's subpages are their own personal commentary. I don't think there is a problem with what info is included on one's own user page, as long is it somehow "helps" Memory-Alpha. Both Shran and I put info on the subpages because we had already "filled" our main user page. I didn't want to go over 35kb with my main page, so I moved info to my second page. Now because of my recent image section, the page is over 53kb, but I don't think it has any negative effect on Memory Alpha. :::According to Memory Alpha:Do not use subpages, subpages are to be used by users to organize their content better. I believe that is what me and Shran are doing. My main page only has about 30kb so anyone could see it without problems. If someone wants to see my second page and their computer can't load it, well too bad. Since Memory-Alpha seems to be heavily based on Wikipedia, I decided to go check there. According to wikipedia:Wikipedia:Subpages, they specify that User subpages are allowed to organize personal content. They don't allow content unrelated to writing an encyclopedia. They further specify on wikipedia:Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider that they are not Personal Homepages or File Storage Areas. :::All of the information on my pages, could be used for Memory-Alpha. First of all, on my Main page, I have a self-written copy of the Table of Elements from Rascals. If someone were to ever revamp the element article then they might want to use it as a reference. I also have a copy of the Federation Day newsclipping that was made for Star Trek: Generations. It might not have been used but the information could be added somewhere (background if necessary). I have a list of Yeomen comparing amount of females to males. That is the most personal list on the main page, but I feel it adds insight into the possible "sexism" or not of the original Star Trek. I then have a list of Warp Barriers which could be added in some way to other pages. On my second page, I have a long list of naming charts, which I find possibly useful insight into the creators naming practices, and also possible "goof-ups". I have a section on "Vulcan Beards" which includes images. This information, while interesting, is solely included because it combines my two loves of Vulcans and facial hair. If there is ever an article on facial hair (I don't know if there should be or not) the information might be added to a Vulcan section. The next part, which catapulted the page from under 30 to over 50 kb, is an image comparison section on actors who have played different individuals of the same species. While that information is given on the actors' general pages, I feel a centralized location is also a good feature. This information is neither from a Trek Universe POV or a Trek Franchise POV, but it still all can add to the articles. I'd also like to point out that most, if not all, of the information was provided by Memory Alpha itself, by searching for the information, and sometimes coming up with ideas from Memory Alpha. :::Now, I'd like to point out Captainmike also has a star chart, a rank chart, an explanation of plasma and power systems, and a list of anti-particles and more. I believe he uses these for the same reason I created my lists, and Shran created his lists. As for commentary and explanations, well, I don't have any problem with it since it can be used in background sections when necessary.--Tim Thomason 23:13, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) I'd like to give a detailed reply, but it's already late in this part of the world. For the moment, just one question, something I already brought up in my initial post: If you have a section on one of your userpages that is related to some existing or potential encyclopedia article on this site (you gave several examples above), why don't you add it to that article, eventually as a background section, or at least to the articles' talk page? Anything would be better than burying the information on some user subpage where a possible contributor or interested reader might never find it. I can understand having that information on a user page temporarily, while it is being compiled, but it shouldn't stay there forever. -- Cid Highwind 23:25, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I'm sorry, I should have clarified more. The point of the sections on my User page and subpage, is to centralize information in a way not found elsewhere. There is no article or section on Vulcan beards, yet I have added a section to my second page about it. Some of the information has then gone back to the articles (thanks to AJHalliwell). I myself am not a very good encyclopedia writer, with no featured articles to date (I believe my best article is Star Trek is...), but I still like to compile these lists and this info. Everything was compiled with Memory Alpha as the one and only resource, and I am just trying to defend myself with these lists. I was going to add specialized rank charts with images of people who held those ranks, but instead I just added images to the rank pages. This is all fun, and I don't think the user pages (I have limited myself to 2) are hardly taking up "space." They don't show up on searches, and hardly any page links to them. I will copy information from my user pages to the talk pages where necessary, but I still think that I should be allowed to paste any trek-relevent list, commentary, or "explanation" that I would like on my user pages. I'm also not sure what you are attempting to accomplish, since I don't believe anything is against current policy. Are you attempting to ban all user pages that contain any Non-encyclopedia commentary, goof explanations, or Unreasonable little charts. There are maybe hundreds of users on Memory Alpha with those on their User page. If you think that my subpage should be gone (T smitts kind of singled me out as a partial inspiration), then I'll remove it. C'est la vie.--Tim Thomason 23:59, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::My main user page features a brief bio about myself, my contributions to M/A, M/A articles I am currently working on, my personal take on Star Trek: Enterprise, and a dedication section for those individuals related to Trek who have passed away recently. With the exception of the latter, which contains info that can be (and, where suitable, has been) added to the individual's respective articles and the Star Trek deaths pages, there is nothing there that I can see helping M/A. As for my subpage, this includes my personal insights into the Trek universe, including possible discrepancy explanations and fan-created timelines. The discrepancy explanations could be used as background info for their respective articles, but it would end up being a long background section. The timelines are, like I said, fan-based; some of it is canon, some of it is pure fan speculation and cannot help M/A. Then there is the "Live Long and Prosper" section, which lists those major Trek characters who have kicked the bucket. This list could be useful, although the info has already been added in some form on M/A's casualty pages. As you can see, however, the majority of the page is personal commentary/content, which I believe is allowed, according to M/A policies. That said, I do try not to let the pages get out of hand, and if they do, I simply remove a section. --From Andoria with Love 00:08, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) :RE: Tim Thomason and Vulcan beards-- we have an article called "beard", in fact, we've had it quite a few weeks. That more than solves that. I'm sure with five minutes to do a bit of searching one could easily find a place for the rest. --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm feeling a little guilty because I feel because of me, Shran and Tim are now being forced to defend something they enjoy doing and that is ultimately harmless. I'm willing to dispose of the subpage and transfer most of its contents to my primary page (the "red sig" is overrated really, especially since someone showed me how to do it and still have user page content). I do feel they would be worth keeping on one page or another since there's no other appropriate place for keeping the compilation of glaring and irreconcilable errors I'm listing. That being said, I agree with Tim as I believe the user pages are all in good fun, for the most part. Also most contain either personal information, info of a partially speculative nature, and info for which there are currently no lists, none of which would fit well within an actual entry page. I also don't plan on devour an excess of space, since I intended it to be primarily text with a scattering of images. I will, however, defer to the judgment here, whatever that might be, but hope they'll remember what brings us here in the first place.--T smitts 00:34, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::::I don't really care one way or another about user pages per se - just look at the amount of content on mine - but I have to say this is one of those "It's the principle of the thing" matters. My listen to this quote/scene links take up way more space than all your user pages combined (particularly my questionable move along home montage). --Schrei 00:47, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::::for some reason, that site won't let me register. No matter what I do I can't post on that site. any suggestions? Tobyk777 01:04, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I like some of the user pages here, it shows the user's personality and makes MA feel more like a community. And chat on user talk pages only seem to occur out of friendship or to settle a dispute, as MA doesn't really have a place for this despite repeatedly calling ourselves "a community". We seem to relate closer to an office building, with cubicles. Work, contribute, leave an occasional note on that was an nice article, go back to work. All user pages I've seen only contain their commentary on "Star Trek" things. I think a user's page should be their own place. As for moving commentary to their articles, I don't think some of them really would fit in, and would hurt our database. Such as say, comparing the Kriosians to the Trill, or their personal belief of why the Trill forehead/spots. Opinions and speculation are removed from articles. User pages seem to be a good place for them. When the main page goes on and on to multiple subpages though, a user's gotta consider figuring out how to make their own website. - AJHalliwell 01:14, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) Well, I don't have a problem with some content about the user itself on the user pages. I don't even have a problem with some commentary type content on user pages (with some being a topic or two). I definitely have a problem with content that should be placed somewhere in article space but is not (because that, in the long run, is a handicap to the primary goal of MA) and extensive unencyclopedic content. See also our own What Memory Alpha is not, especially: :''Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. We're not here to chat or to discuss ideas, simply to write the encyclopedia.'' :''Storage space. Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project. (This includes your personal User: pages.) Uploaded files that are not directly related to an article will be deleted immediately.'' I'd hate to have this regulated by "Yet Another Policy" - perhaps everyone of us could just go through his own page(s) and try to restrict the content somewhat by moving or removing...? Regarding the community aspect, it's true that MA could perhaps use a little more of that - but I doubt that, to use the example given, a comparison between two alien species somewhere deep in user space achieves that. For leisure discussion, there's our forum or e-mail and instant messaging - I'm in regular contact with some other contributors via ICQ, for example, and while I don't want to make my ICQ# public here, feel free to send me an e-mail to get my number. -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::I get what you're saying, but what exactly on the user pages do you believe should be moved or removed and what does not need to be moved or removed? I've already stated my belief that the content on my user page and subpage does not harm or go against M/A or its policy while it also cannot benefit the encyclopedia. I feel the same way about the content on Tim Thomason's page and T smitts' page. Could you give us specific examples of what can stay and what should not stay, the latter having to be in direct violation with the M/A policies listed here. You don't have to do this here, however; you can tell us on each of our talk pages. But I reiterate the sentiments of myself, T smitts, Tim Thomason, and A.J. - the content, like M/A, is all in good fun and it does not, in our opinion, harm M/A. In fact, as A.J. stated, the content "shows a user's personality and makes MA feel more like a community." --From Andoria with Love 09:58, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) I really don't want to start some sort of witch hunt by going around and telling people what parts of their user pages exactly I consider in violation of which policy - but, of course, I should be able to give specific examples. Let's use your subpage: ;Discrepancy explanations : As you said yourself, the less-speculative parts of these sections could become background comments on article pages or at least article talk pages. The rest is, to be exact, in violation of the following: :''Memory Alpha is not a fanfic or RPG resource. Our Canon Policy explicitly states that Memory Alpha is solely about canon information. Regardless of the quality of the work, non-canon works and information are not accepted. :''Personal speculation. Although there are a great many gaps in our knowledge about the Star Trek universe, Memory Alpha articles are not the place for personal opinions. Don't write an entire article on a speculative subject — if we don't know, then leave it blank! Speculation must be based on canon facts, should be limited to a few sentences or a paragraph, and must be clearly marked as speculation.'' (from: What Memory Alpha is not) ;The History of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 : The same - parts are perfect for the article, the rest is personal speculation. ;The Life & Times of James T. Kirk : ditto. ;Live long and prosper : The subsection about "confirmed deaths" might make a good article. The rest is, again, speculation. These parts aren't really "community-building", either. Again, please note that I'm not advocating the instant removal of each and every bit of information from the user pages, just to restrict the content and discussion thereof to a level that is not interfering with MA's primary goal and reason for existance. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Aren't those policies written specifically for article content? I can certainly understand how those would relate to writing M/A articles, but not to user pages, especially since user pages are for personal content as long as it relates to Trek. Speaking of which, is there a page that has a clear cut definition of what can be placed on Memory Alpha (not Wikipedia) user and subpages? If not, we need one. :P --From Andoria with Love 11:48, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) **New policy: All content on user pages or subpages must be removed in the next 48 hours, because user signatures will now point to . Okay, maybe not, but at least we'd be clear on what's allowed. --Schrei 14:21, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) @Schrei: *lol* ^^ @Cid: You're right with the "non-canon works and information are not accepted" concerning articles (main sections) but that doesn't involves user pages. I think an user can do what he wants with his page as long as there is no flame or stuff like the link here (or stuff from Star Wars o.s.l.t.). I agree that some content could be moved to articles, but this is the decision of the user, or someone else who can copyedit it from someones user page (they are licensed with CC by name as well) to an article. So I vote for status quo, especially regarding the fact that other wikis allow "big" user pages too. --Memory 17:40, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) proposition I'd like to propose discussing how the following rules of this site, copied from Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not, could relate to user pages: #'' Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. We're not here to chat or to discuss ideas, simply to write the encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss Trek, please visit our sponsor site, the Subspace Comms Network. #'' Memory Alpha is not a fanfic or RPG resource. Our Canon Policy explicitly states that Memory Alpha is solely about canon information. Regardless of the quality of the work, non-canon works and information are not accepted. #'' Memory Alpha is not a mirror. Articles and contributions must be released for free use under our Creative Commons License. #'' An image gallery. Memory Alpha has a finite supply of disk space and bandwidth — although there is plenty available at the moment, do not upload collections of images for the sole purpose of displaying them. Make sure they have a clear link and purpose in an article. Collections of images. Articles are not for simple collections or collages of images — they must have an article to accompany and describe them. #'' Personal speculation. Although there are a great many gaps in our knowledge about the Star Trek universe, Memory Alpha articles are not the place for personal opinions. Don't write an entire article on a speculative subject — if we don't know, then leave it blank! Speculation must be based on canon facts, should be limited to a few sentences or a paragraph, and must be clearly marked as speculation. #'' Advertising for websites. If your personal site focuses on the same subject as an article, then it is acceptable to add the site to a list of external links in that article. However, use your judgment and make sure that the context is appropriate — spamming is not tolerated!'' #'' Memory Alpha:Do not use subpages New topic Defining "vandalism" in relation to user pages: ;Draft : No other user is allowed to edit your user page. If another user edits your personal user page, it might be considered an act of vandalism. ::''An exception to this exists, because an Admin or Bot may edit an an external link or an internal wikilink, to avoid linking out to sites which are classified as "spam", or to link internally to invalid pages. Bots do this automatically, so don't be upset if you have to change a link back or use a talk page to let someone know they erroneously edited your links. Basically, this is how i've gathered things are "supposed" to work, from various other pages dealing with spam, vandalism, talk pages, bots, and admins -- this could be considered "cobbled together" from those other policies or definitions. If an admin feels a need to edit content for offensiveness, i feel that might be worth mentioning. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:12, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Editing to remove offensive content should definitely be allowed (whoever added that content, a vandal or the user itself). Also, I'd like to make an exception for admins to add at least a link to the users' talk page if a link to the user page shows up somewhere on places 1-10 . -- Cid Highwind 16:51, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support'''-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:57, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)